James Starks has only carried the ball 20+ times three times in his career.

Carries, Yards, YPC and Long.

Code:

23 123 5.3 27
25 66 2.6 13
22 74 3.4 16

Three consecutive games with an explosive run against playoff teams (Eagles, Falcons, Bears) while getting 3.75 yards per carry while totaling 263 yards and a touchdown.

Alex Green vs Texans, Rams and Jaguars

Code:

22 54 2.5 7
20 35 1.8 15
22 65 3.0 10

Over the course of the last three games, Green has rushed for 154 yards at 2.4 per carry and only one explosive run.

I don't think James Starks is the answer to the running game, however, I'd like to see him get 20+ carries a game and maybe he can bridge the gap to when Cedric Benson comes back.

And until Benson comes back, I think this is the best fluid down/RB setup.

1st down - James Starks2nd down - James Starks3rd down - Alex Green

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

This is with the premise that we are marching forward with the stable we have.

Starks has not been a model of durability in college nor the pros.. but he has playoff experience under his belt. So he provides value as the playoff push and run draw closer, hence his still being on the roster.

But I think the Packers are trying to protect him somewhat so he is fresh towards the end of the year and in the push. Benson is a maybe on his return at best, that injury is just that unpredictable. Increasing Starks value in the postseason.

So the Packers are feeding Green the ball currently with hopes that experience leads to performance improvement. Green was a one cut hole reading back in college, to write his vision off already is premature in my eyes. He isn't going to improve on the sidelines.. so feeding him the rock now is going to tell the Packers what they have in him.

My opinion as runners, I like Green better as a pure runner, he runs behind his pads and low. Starks on the other hand is more vertical, and although he runs with some power, he takes a beating in the process.

Summary, I think the Packers are better off with Green as option 1 and Starks as the overflow for the above mention reasons at this point. Starks will get to knock the rust off and yet is protected as a back can be in terms of injury risks. Benson's progress will then dictate the roles moving forward, if he comes back, Starks will move more towards the feature back and Green will overtake the role the serves him and the Packers best.. 3rd down and change of pace.

I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

I those numbers are an unfair comparison. Because the Packers had their top WRs healthy, hot and going full stream in the 2010 playoffs run where Starks got his.

I do feel that a healthy Starks would be better than Green right now, because while Green does try hard to be physical and make room when sometimes when their isn't, he just doesn't seem to have the power to finish. Where (a fully healthy) Starks and Benson do seem to have that power to make a 2 yard run into a 4 or 5 yard run. I feel Green needs room to get going.

I think they should mix Green and Stark both in.

Use Starks for the power run/power blocking

Use Green for the zone running, spread offense where he should have more room to work with and get going.

Use BOTH in the passing game.

And make sure to mix it up and keep the offense balance with both backs in, so they might be able to figure out Starks goes with power and Green goes with zone, they still won't know weather it's a run or a pass.

I remember a couple years ago, Grant was coming off an injury, so they limited his snaps. When ever they put Grant in, every knew it was going to be a run, because they weren't doing pass plays with him in there. Point is they got to keep it balanced with both.

America's team Of the people by the people for the people Packer People~ madeby ~ pack93z ~

I still think it comes down to fumbles. I think that's what Mike McCarthy likes about Green more than anything. He can carrie 20 times a game holding that ball tight.

This doesn't make any sense at all. James Starks has only lost one fumble his entire NFL career. I still believe Starks is lacking repetitions because of his work ethic practicing and also part of me feels they are wanting to "save" him for later part of the season when running the ball is more required because of weather.

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

A bit off the subject, but I think Mike McCarthy should break out some of the tricks he used for B-Jack for Green. Like the spread offense, shotgun run on 3rd down. I think it'd work a lot better with Green than it did with Jackson.

Then again I think he did something like that with Cobb... but when Cobb is in the backfield teams have learned to target him. They're not going to be targeting Green at first in that, also with Jennings and Nelson out, they need Cobb at WR.

America's team Of the people by the people for the people Packer People~ madeby ~ pack93z ~

This doesn't make any sense at all. James Starks has only lost one fumble his entire NFL career.

I understand that, but Mike McCarthy must not like something about Starks. He struggled in the preseason then got hurt.. I don't wanna rely on someone who is some might say inconsistant and coming off an injurie to start over Green that we've ran 76 times with in sum odd 4 games..

Reguarding your first post, our team is different from 2 years ago when we ran behind a better line. Clifton, Wells, and Colledge. Probably why we ran better to the left doncha think.

I honestly can say Starks won't be anything greater than Green behind this line.. Really.., i'd like to use them both equally and sees if that works btter to our advantage. I just don't see a change unless Green gets hurt or catches fumblitis.

I understand that, but Mike McCarthy must not like something about Starks. He struggled in the preseason then got hurt.. I don't wanna rely on someone who is some might say inconsistant and coming off an injurie to start over Green that we've ran 76 times with in sum odd 4 games..

Reguarding your first post, our team is different from 2 years ago when we ran behind a better line. Clifton, Wells, and Colledge. Probably why we ran better to the left doncha think.

I honestly can say Starks won't be anything greater than Green behind this line.. Really.., i'd like to use them both equally and sees if that works btter to our advantage. I just don't see a change unless Green gets hurt or catches fumblitis.

I can honestly say James Starks would provide better carries than Alex Green. Green has the Ryan Grant syndrome. Head down, into OL. You are right, Mike McCarthy doesn't like something about James Starks, his practicing habits, or lack thereof. This was documented a year or so ago and I feel it has persisted. Also, Starks is made out of glass so I think they figure they have X amount of carries with him and prefer to use them when it counts. Kinda like having a six shooter, you don't take wild shots, you wait until the most opportune time to hit the trigger.

Alex Green is superior receiving threat, hence why I said he should be the 3rd down back, which obviously the person who came back with the "I'll see you and raise you a" with receiving stats failed to comprehend. I'd rather the carries split between them while waiting for Cedric Benson to return. You get the best of both worlds in the meantime.

That's not going to happen, so I'm putting my eggs in the Alex Green basket and hope he gets 25 carries and 125 yards rushing against the Cardinals.

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

I think they are saving Starks. Why not? Seems like biffing Green up the middle for 0-3 yds 20+ per game is working now. Might get us through to week 11, where we can start bringing Starks along at a more dedicated # of reps with less fear of injury. Seems kind of dumb to me on some levels. On others, not so much. Starks' history has been that he is not all that durable, so I can see why they might use caution. On the other hand, the guy is a football player, and this is the NFL. If Starks is ready to go, which from what I've read he is, then get him in there!

I like Green, but I am wondering if he is reading the blocking schemes correctly. Seems like he has run into areas where he shouldn't - which makes both he and the OL look bad. I would like to know if this is in fact part of the problem. OL blocking for an outside run, and the kid takes it inside... that kind of stuff.

I can honestly say James Starks would provide better carries than Alex Green. Green has the Ryan Grant syndrome. Head down, into OL. You are right, Mike McCarthy doesn't like something about James Starks, his practicing habits, or lack thereof. This was documented a year or so ago and I feel it has persisted. Also, Starks is made out of glass so I think they figure they have X amount of carries with him and prefer to use them when it counts. Kinda like having a six shooter, you don't take wild shots, you wait until the most opportune time to hit the trigger.

Alex Green is superior receiving threat, hence why I said he should be the 3rd down back, which obviously the person who came back with the "I'll see you and raise you a" with receiving stats failed to comprehend. I'd rather the carries split between them while waiting for Cedric Benson to return. You get the best of both worlds in the meantime.

That's not going to happen, so I'm putting my eggs in the Alex Green basket and hope he gets 25 carries and 125 yards rushing against the Cardinals.

Agreed I think that would fair better than just one of them carrying the load.

Green Bay Packers RB Alex Green will remain the team's starting running back over RB James Starks due to his breakaway speed. The team would rather continue on with Green as the lead back rather than trade for Carolina Panthers RB DeAngelo Williams or St. Louis Rams RB Steven Jackson, too. General manager Ted Thompson prefers to save salary cap space so he can work on contracts for LB Clay Matthews, DT B.J. Raji and QB Aaron Rodgers.

I've been critical of Green, but that one article explained alot to me. He's actually got a pretty good per carry average, except when he tries to run behind Newhouse and Land. Makes alot more sense now.

I'd still like to see them play more to his skill set though.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

I recall Starks having poor practice habits in the past. Someone may want to check me on that, but I think it was just after his debut against San Francisco in 2010, and he received poor reviews this training camp. In fact, his lack of progress is what prompted Green Bay to go and sign Cedric Benson. Perhaps Starks is just game day player with a poor practice routine. Regardless, Alex Green isn't getting it done and it wouldn't hurt to work Starks into the game plan more.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.